Video Over Fiber Gives Surgeons a Clearer Picture

Surgeons who depend on video images in the operating room are about to get a big boost in picture resolution.

Using a new optical sub-assembly to do the so-called "muxing" and "demuxing," they'll be able to send video images from in-body probes to operating-room monitors without the loss of resolution that often occurs during such transfers.

"If you want high-definition video, you have to be able to convert the (electrical) signals to optical, and we're the first to be able to do this in the operating room," Craig Morris, Video over Fiber sales manager for Omron Electronic Components LLC, maker of the new optical sub-assembly, told us.

He said that the technology addresses a problem that has long plagued operating room (OR) video systems. Because OR real estate is at a premium, images are normally passed through, and stored in, servers as far as 300 feet from the surgical suite. As the images move from the OR to the server and back, resolution is lost.

"You have a choice," Jeff Brown, senior sales engineer for Omron, said in an interview. "You can put the server 300 feet away and have lousy video, or you can put it in the operating room and have good video. But up to now, you couldn't have both."

Omron's solution is a multiplexing/de-multiplexing (muxing/demuxing) device that converts the signals to an optical format, which won't lose resolution as it caroms back and forth between the OR and the server. Earlier this year, Omron announced the release of a Video-over-Fiber component, called the SX4 Mini Module, which offers a throughput of 14Gb/s over a single optical fiber. Late last year, the company demonstrated transmission of HD video over distances of 300m using the technology.

In the OR, the mini module would be used to convert digital signals to optical as they leave an in-body probe and begin their journey to the server. The optical signals would then be converted back to digital at the remote server, back to optical after leaving the server, and again back to digital at the OR monitor. Up to now, there was no conversion to optical. Digital signals typically travelled over copper-based cables, and resolution was lost in the process, according to Omron.

The SX4 Mini Module, which is about the size of a baby's pinky finger, enables the muxing and demuxing because it contains lasers, filters, prisms, and reflectors aligned in extremely precise ways. Omron said the company is able to mount the parts within a plastic housing to a precision of about 1µm. Cost of the technology is expected to be high, however, possibly reaching about $400 for a transmitter-receiver pair.

The company predicts the technology will see use in applications inside and outside the medical industry. In addition to endoscopy, colonoscopy, and robotic surgery, Omron engineers foresee it being applied in digital signs, high-end audio-visual systems, and high-definition television broadcast systems. "Anywhere you see long runs of high-definition video, you could use this," Morris said.

Given that more and more surgical procedures rely on imaging as a key navigational tool, this is a welcome development. Clarity of video and range of sight are instrumental in allowing surgeons to carry out these procedures with specialized instruments instead of a reliance on heavy cutting.

I'm surprised at the claims made here. HD video in surgery typically is routed via digital formats -- HD-SDI or DVI for live video, and ethernet for stored stuff. With digital video, there is no loss of resolution in the transmission from place to place -- that is a primary reason for using it. Standard definition video is almost always analog (NTSC and PAL formats being the most common legacy types), and it can suffer some loss of resolution in long distance transmission, or in moving from device to device, if care is not taken. But high definition video has been a digital format since its adoption, and it delivers full resolution all the time, up until complete loss of signal -- there is no degradation with distance. While optical transmission has some advantages, and can have a nice high data rate, I see nothing compelling for most ORs in this device.

AJ2X, if HDMI is being used in these OR video systems, there are issues with tranmission over copper HDMI cables beyond 30m. You are correct in that digital video signals such as HDMI will not have any loss of resoltuion over long distances. However since HDMI is digital, beyond 30m with copper HDMI cables there will be compatability issues with some HDMI equipment leading to complete loss of the video signal.

There are some HDMI "boosters" that may add another 10m to the effective copper cable length, but optical HDMi cables are the best solution for longer cable lengths. Since there are explosive gases used in ORs, opitical HDMI cables also offer a safer way to transport HD video signals than with copper HDMI cables.

dbarto; You are correct about HDMI having signal-quality degradation over distance in wire, as all signals do without repeaters or equalizers of some sort. Optical transmission is better at that sort of thing, though it needs repeaters also. But the claims for this optical device were about resolution improvements, and it cannot deliver that.

Incidentally, HDMI is not common in laparoscopic camera-aided surgery -- it's mostly HD-SDI in the US and DVI-D in Europe. And the explosive-gas argument is a non-issue: ORs have long been full of electronic equipment operating at much higher voltages and powers than are present in any video transmission method.

NadineJ -- This device, inserted in a digital video transmission system, cannot deliver any improvement in video resolution. The resolution is set by the camera -- anything added to it can only degrade the resolution or at best maintain it.

Long distance digital video transmission by optical fibers (and other means) is pretty well-established and successful, and has and will work well for telesurgery and robotics.

I did note the "if" in your statement, which is a throwaway word here to emphasize the statement about "exponentially better picture". Nowhere in the article is "exponentially" used, so it looked to me like you were trying to claim even more amazing things for this product. It looked like a shill comment to me, which I don't think was your intention.

Don't get me wrong -- this irtem from Omron is no doubt a useful device, and I can see places where it might be productively used. But the claim that "Digital signals typically travelled over copper-based cables, and resolution was lost in the process" is just not accurate. Technically inaccurate statements and publicity flack do not make a "good article."

If you’re developing an embedded monitoring and control application, then you’ll want to take note of the upcoming Design News Continuing Education Center class, “Embedded Development Using Microchip Microcontrollers and the CCS C Compiler."

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.